This book is on both Woodrow Wilson and Vladimir Lenin. At first one might think these men are diametrically different from one another but the author Arthur Herman successfully show reader how much the two of them are alike and how both men shaped what the twentieth century would be like. A fascinating historical book even for those who know about both men since this work is still profitable for readers to see the comparison and contrast of the two men and also the timeline of both their lives. I agree with the author’s thesis that these two men shaped much of the Twentieth Century. I learned a lot from this book.

I thought the book was fascinating for exploring ways Lenin and Wilson were similar while also acknowledging their differences. I thought it was ironic to read about how much Hegelian philosophy has shaped Woodrow Wilson’s worldview yet in building up propaganda for the “War to End All Wars” Wilson’s own administration painted the Germans as backwards and uncivilized. Wilson’s statism is really the vision of the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s view of the state. In an interesting parallel Lenin was a fanatical follower of Karl Marx and Marx himself was a “Young Hegelian” who were Left-wing Hegelians. It is interesting to see how much Hegel has influenced these two men that shaped so much of the Twentieth Century. The book did a good job capturing the personality of Wilson and Lenin as ideologue who were obsessed with their vision and agenda for a new world order. Both men were fanatical in desiring their vision to be fulfilled even when their allies around them thought it was impractical. While some of their own supporters suggested taking small tangible step towards their objective or were willing to compromise and work with others nevertheless both Wilson and Lenin were “purists” to their ideology in that they were not willing to see a few accomplishment but rather their whole vision being implemented. There is an “all or nothing” approach for these two men. Sometimes that resulted in surprising victory such as Lenin with the Bolsheviks’ takeover of Russia while other times that resulted in humiliating loss such as Wilson’s inability to compromise led to the defeat of the Senate ratification of the League of Nations (by the way the author gave a conclusive argument that the blame for the League’s failure rest more on Wilson’s inability to compromise than even the Republicans who opposed him since they were willing to amend and compromise). Both men were at times pretty arrogant towards others. This came out politically and also militarily. Both Lenin and Wilson were never military men and didn’t necessarily pursue better relationship with the military during times of war but they were orators who were more comfortable continuing their talks about ideology.

An interesting parallel that Herman pointed out in the book is how both men’s destiny were shaped by German State Secretary for Foreign Affairs Arthur Zimmermann. Many Americans might remember their high school history class on the Zimmermann telegram which was a coded message to the Mexican government about the possibility of alliance with Mexico against the United States. The Zimmermann telegram of course pushed the US to war. The same Zimmermann also helped Lenin. Zimmermann promoted a policy towards the Russians called Peace in the East which among many things included allowing revolutionaries such as Lenin to pass through Germany to Russia by train. After Lenin’s return to Russia later he did have to flee to Finland to avoid being arrested since he was paid by the German. These events allowed Lenin to be in Russia to bring about his goal of a Marxist government.

Lenin’s and Wilson’s relationship with each other is also an interesting exploration in this work. In some sense the way they relate to one another also defined some of the ways the two country interacted with each other for decades to come. The book was interesting and informative right up to the very end for the author explored the parallel of how both men suffered a stroke in their last years of their life and how they thought of themselves during the eve of their death. I thought it was very disturbing reading about Wilson here since Americans often have a sanitized view of him. For example Wilson in his later years thought the US should have pursued World War One differently not by not being involved but by entering into the war earlier. That is crazy! He also blamed the Russian revolution on capitalism but I think he’s confused capitalism for other kinds of economic policies (cronyism, serfdom, etc). While Wilson was not a Marxist he was similar to Lenin for believing in government controlled economy. I learned from the book that day light saving began in our modern time originally as a way for the government control coal.

There was way too many things that I learned from this work for me to go over in a review. I think the author’s thesis is right that the two men shaped much of the twentieth century. The author is right in his conclusion for arguing against the popular opinion that it was World War Two that allowed America to practice a world hegemony. For Herman the hegemony began in World War One where the United States started out financially with their unprecedented global reach and influence. I recommend this book.

11 Responses

Interesting book review and thesis. What began with Wilson was accelerated by Roosevelt (who may have been enfluenced by Stalin & Mussolini) in transforming our nation and government into the socialist state along with the entitlement mentality being adopted by the population.

Wow didn’t know that specific detail. The book also discusses the tension about Wilson wanting people of various nationalities to be free yet also he didn’t include “Asiatics” nor did he wanted to undermine certain power’s colonialism (England, France, etc) but wanted to see the sick ol’ man of Europe broken apart. Do Poles typically have a positive view of Wilson?

This looks fascinating! I’m going to add it to my reading list. I love reading books on history. One that I enjoyed in particular was another compare/contrast book called the General vs. the President by H.W. Brands discussing the tumultuous years following world war II and the clash between Truman and MacArthur. It filled in a lot of holes for me!

Hegel’s influence upon politicians and theologians is far reaching. The left in both realms have adopted his dialectic to subvert biblical morality.
the founding American documents are all based upon Natural Law or God’s biblical Law. Wilson appointed a new head of the Harvard school of law. He introduced, for the first time of evolutionary positive case law. evolutionary in the sense that all laws must progress to conform to an ever evolving society.Society had to be released from its biblical shackles. Lawyers and judges with the aide of the ACLU bring case law to overturn natural law. They use the Hegelian dialectic, (thesis * anti-thesis = synthesis) in the courts and in the body politic to do this. Each case is designed to move society to the far left. Liberal theology can trace its roots back to Hegel . His influence corrupted the seminaries of Germany. lt lead to higher textural criticism with a goal to cause people to doubt that the Bible is God breathed. they exchanged the creation account with evolution. this dumped original sin the necessity for the cross. This in turn led to the social justice movements. They replaced the true gospel with global societal salvation through good works. The parable of the sheep and the goats is their false Gospel. the communists infiltrated the south and central american churches. they introduced liberation theology. In north America it morphed into Black liberation theology as taught by Obama’s pastor Rev.Wright. That is an over simplification to a deeply tangled mess.